JOINT COMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS, MARINE AND NATURAL RESOURCES díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 22 Sep 2004

EU Fisheries Control Agency: Presentation.

Chairman

I welcome Dr. Beamish and his officials from the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources to discuss COM (2004) 289 which is a proposal for a Council regulation establishing a Community fisheries control agency and the amendment of regulation EC 2487/93 establishing a control system applicable to the Common Fisheries Policy. The format will be a brief presentation followed by a question and answer attention.

Members of the committee have absolute privilege but this same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before the committee. It is generally accepted witnesses have qualified privilege but the committee cannot guarantee any level of privilege to witnesses appearing before it. I remind members of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official by name in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

Will Dr. Beamish introduce his officials?

Dr. Cecil Beamish

My colleagues are Andrew Kineen, sea food control manager, and Mr. James Lavelle, assistant principal officer in the seafood policy division of the Department dealing with Common Fisheries Policy matters.

We are dealing with a proposal from the Commission to the Council for a regulation to establish for the first time a Community fisheries control agency and to amend the existing regulation which establishes the fisheries control system applicable under the Common Fisheries Policy. The proposal was issued by the Commission on 28 April.

The genesis of the proposal was the review of the Common Fisheries Policy, which concluded in December 2002. That resulted in a new framework regulation for the policy, No. 2371 of 2002, which is the basic regulation establishing the Common Fisheries Policy for the next ten years. Throughout the review, there was an increased emphasis on the issue of fisheries control and enforcement and a general recognition by all parties that fisheries control and enforcement would have to improve and become more effective and binding throughout the Community if the decline in and pressure on fish stocks was to be arrested and they were to recover.

The general principle set out at the Council was that we should move forward to building a level playing field in the enforcement of fisheries law both between members states and Community fishermen, for which Ireland has long been calling. The basic framework regulation agreed in 2002 contains a number of detailed control and enforcement articles. Article 28 creates a legal requirement for member states to co-ordinate and co-operate in fisheries control.

The Commission introduced the concept of establishing a Community fisheries control agency in March 2003. That concept was endorsed, subject to various caveats, in July 2003 in a set of Council conclusions while in December 2003 the Heads of State and Government decided to base the agency in Spain. The Spanish Government has indicated Vigo will be a suitable base. The Commission then brought forward the proposal we are addressing on the establishment of the agency. The overall objective is to improve the efficiency and the consistency of implementation of Common Fisheries Policy rules throughout Community waters and wherever Community fishing vessels are operating.

The mission of the proposed agency is to organise operational co-ordination of fisheries control and inspection activities by member states; to co-ordinate the deployment of the various control resources available within the Community; to assist member states in information reporting on control activities; and to assist member states to fulfil their Common Fisheries Policy tasks and obligations. It is a facilitating agency assisting in the co-ordination and implementation of fisheries control programmes.

The agency structure is set out in the proposal. While we describe it as an executive agency, it is described as a regulatory agency in Community law, the distinction being that is not under the direct control of the Commission and, under Community concepts, an executive agency would be under the direct control of the Commission.

Deputy Broughan

Would it recommend regulations?

Dr. Beamish

No, it is an implementation body, not a rule setting body.

Deputy Broughan

If member states are not happy with the application of the system, could the agency make submissions based on its experience?

Dr. Beamish

No, it is an implementation body. It will operate under sets of rules adopted by the Commission and Council. Experience will be built up through the operation of the agency but it is a non-rule setting body. Everybody will learn from the experience.

Chairman

Should there be greater cohesion?

Dr. Beamish

The framework directive contains a range of provisions in the area of control and most of them establish transparency and uniformity of fisheries control. This involves a range of issues, some of which are addressed by this proposal which deals only with the agency. It provides a platform for co-operation between member states.

Deputy Broughan

Will the agency deploy ships?

Dr. Beamish

No, the agency will comprise 50 staff, who are currently accommodated within the Commission structure. They will be moved. They are the people who regulate the regulators or police the police. They examine how the obligations regarding the implementations of fisheries law are being implemented in each of the member states. The agency itself will not have detailed operational assets. The primary responsibility for fisheries control will remain with the member states. This is about co-operation and co-ordination. For example, many of the fisheries which operate within the Union operate across a variety of member states' exclusive economic zones and, in some cases, also operate in international waters. If one is trying to protect the stocks which are being fished in all of those different areas, it is desirable that there be effective and harmonious fisheries control across the whole fishery. That is the type of task this body will co-ordinate. It will ensure that the control effort across the whole fishery, whether in the waters of one, two or three different member states, is more uniform than today.

Chairman

It is not confined to vessels of a particular size, for example.

Dr. Beamish

It is everything. There is a range of programmes. The Commission, under the framework regulation, will establish monitoring and control programmes and set the benchmarks to be established. This agency will be the implementing body working with the member states.

Deputy Broughan

It will not be able to carry out independent checks.

Dr. Beamish

It can deploy its people with the member states' people on control and enforcement programmes. At present the Commission has the right to carry out announced or unannounced visits to the member states, essentially checking what is happening in enforcement but it does not do the enforcement.

It will have another function. Currently, the satellite information collected on fisheries is held in each of the member states; that is the primary residue of information. The new agency will hold the European fisheries monitoring centre. The collective of satellite information on all of the EU fleet, wherever it is operating, will be held within the agency. That will give the agency a total picture of what is happening in fisheries and it will then respond to what the Community regards as the priorities.

Chairman

As I said earlier, members of the committee recently returned from Australia where we saw how fishery policy and the operation of fishery are separate. This creates a gap between the Minister and the industry. Will a similar gap be created between the Commission and monitoring?

Dr. Beamish

The Commission will still be devising the programmes and the Commission and Council will be setting the standards. At present, each member state carries sole responsibility for enforcement in its own zone. The Community, through the Council and Commission regulations, establishes the legal framework in which that obligation is carried out. Another layer is now being created, which is this agency, to assist member states to co-ordinate their various responses to the Community standards which are established. The agency will not be doing the enforcement. It will simply co-ordinate the efforts of the member states in how they do it.

For example, in the summer we have a fishery for tuna off the west of Ireland. That tuna fish starts in Portugal, moves along the north coast of Spain, the west coast of France, the west coast of Ireland and ends up north of Scotland. It is fished along the way by all the various member states. To conserve that stock it is important that there be uniform enforcement in each of those areas. Otherwise, one member state will conserve the stock while the other will not. An agency such as this would draw up an overall agreed set of standards for how that is to be done in each of the areas and would work with the member states to ensure the resources are deployed to effect that fisheries control equally across all of the areas.

Deputy Broughan

When was it agreed to put the agency in Vigo? It is like putting the poacher in charge of gamekeeping.

Dr. Beamish

Spain is not being put in charge of the agency. The fact that it is located in Spain does not mean Spain has control of the agency. This is the same as any other Community institution which is located in a member state. This is not a Spanish institution.

Deputy Broughan

The agency we are familiar with in Dublin, the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, was put here because it was perceived that Ireland had a good quality of life. It seems to have become an Irish type of agency. Were concerns not expressed? Was this decision made recently? When we were in competition with other countries for the international telecommunications security agency, Greece beat us to it. The Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern, was about to announce the opening of the agency in Ireland and suddenly had nothing to announce.

Dr. Beamish

The decision of the location of any Community institution is the choice of the Heads of State and Government. Under the Italian Presidency the Heads of State and Government, in December 2003, decided on the location of a variety of institutions, of which this was one. The decision which came out of that meeting was that the agency would be located in Spain. That was a political decision by the Heads of State and Government.

Senator Kenneally

Like Deputy Broughan, I smiled when I saw that it was the Spaniards who would be in charge of this agency. The biggest culprits in breaching Community law and the Common Fisheries Policy are the Spaniards. It is fine to say this is a EU and not a Spanish agency. However, in time one will find that it will be staffed by Spanish personnel. I am surprised that the agency will be located in Spain. It does not make sense to me.

Deputy McGinley

I regret being late for Dr. Beamish's submission. Anything to do with fishing has an impact on my constituency. I did not hear the composition of the agency. I see that the administrative board will include one representative from each coastal member state. How many coastal member states will be involved and what representation will Ireland have on the agency and its administrative board?

I note the reference to the need for strong uniform control. Not everyone in the industry would agree that there is uniform control at present. What guarantees can we have that uniform control will be implemented throughout the Community?

Dr. Beamish

I had not reached the point in my presentation which deals with the structure of the administration of the agency. Deputy McGinley's point is an important one. The location of the agency may be in Spain. That does not mean the structure for governing and staffing the agency is within the control of a particular member state.

The regulations set out how the administrative board of the agency will operate. There will be one representative from each coastal member state. Every member state which has a coast, of which we are one, will be represented on the board. It is also proposed that there be four non-voting representatives from the industry, to ensure a greater degree of shared management with the fishing industry in Europe. Decisions on the operation of the agency will be by majority vote. The rules for the recruitment of staff are set out in the regulations. They are the general rules which govern the appointment of European Union Commission staff. It is a Community institution which is located in one member state.

Everyone agrees with the comments made by Deputy McGinley on the issue of strong uniform control. The current arrangements, where we have a fishery shared across many different waters while the responsibility resides solely with each individual member state, does not guarantee uniform control or equivalent effectiveness. It has been long a cross-party position in Ireland that a level playing field is needed in the area of fisheries control throughout the Union. The agency is part of the response to that call. There needs to be a more uniform and co-ordinated fisheries control effort within Community waters if the rules and regulations established under the Common Fisheries Policy are to be applied effectively to everybody. This is part of a wider range of initiatives to achieve a stronger and more uniform fisheries control. That general objective has long been supported by Ireland.

The Commission will adopt the monitoring, control and surveillance programmes and set the benchmarks and standards for control and surveillance as a general requirement while the Community fisheries control agency will set up programmes to implement the benchmarks and standards and a Community fisheries monitoring centre to gather all the satellite information so that fisheries can be examined, irrespective of where they are occurring.

The agency will work in concert and in consultation with the member states concerned and it will adopt joint deployment programmes within three months of the Community adopting monitoring control and surveillance standards for a particular fishery. The agency will also identify the means of control and inspection, which are to be pooled in this collective effort, and the optimal organisation of the resources.

It is anticipated that the agency should commence its operations in 2006 and an indicative budget of €5 million will be provided. The funding will come from the Community budget and the agency will also have the power to generate revenue through contracts of services, training, publications, etc. One of its functions is to provide a uniform training service for fisheries inspectors throughout the Union so that fisheries inspection is operated in a standard and uniform way by member states and agencies currently engaged in that task.

Many detailed issues must be worked out. The proposal has only recently been published. There will be an initial discussion on it at the October Fisheries Council and we are also awaiting a Commission feasibility study on a variety of the detailed elements of the proposals, which is expected next week or the week after. When both of those are to hand, there will be a detailed evaluation of the proposal at working group level. Nationally, we have established an interdepartmental network to examine this because it has implications for a number of Departments. For example, the Naval Service and the Air Corps are involved in fisheries control and legal and jurisdictional issues must be addressed.

The proposal will be addressed by a number of Departments and agencies and they will have an input into the analysis of the working group in the Commission. The earliest adoption date by the Council will be mid-2005 with commencement in early 2006 \and, therefore, there will be quite a debate on its detail before it is adopted.

Deputy Broughan

I thank Dr. Beamish for a typically excellent presentation by the Department. My concern is that the Department has consistently outlined to Deputies and Senators representing coastal communities the necessity for a level playing pitch and the use of figures for historic catches and so on. The ambition behind the proposal is meritorious but I am concerned about basing the agency in Spain. Did Ireland put up a strong fight to locate the agency, for example, in Killybegs, our fishing capital, or Castletownbere? Did we go to war on this issue? This is another body the Department has not succeeded in capturing at European level for the country.

Should the agency be better equipped and given more significant powers to police depleted reserves and their effect on the livelihoods of our constituents? Could the proposal be muscled up during the discussions at the Commission? Senator Kenneally is correct that the agency should be absolutely independent. As he said, agencies take on the contours of their localities. Issues such as decentralisation are involved.

Deputy McGinley

I concur with Deputy Broughan's comments. Red lights are flashing because the agency will be located in Spain and that is disturbing. I recall former Deputy, Paddy Sheehan, muttering about pirates when Spain became a member state. The prospect of Spain being poacher turned gamekeeper does not appeal. Has the proposal been discussed with representative bodies of the fishing industry? If so, what are their views? The agency would be ideally located in Ireland. We have yielded a great deal as far as fishing is concerned over the past 30 years. We have only 4% of the catch even though we have 25% of the waters. The agency presented an opportunity to slightly redress the balance. There must be control and it would be nice to exercise it from a base in Ireland rather than in Spain. Many agencies are based in Spain and that is not to Ireland's advantage.

Senator Kenneally

When I read about the proposed Community fisheries agency, I thought it was a great idea because there is a need for more control. While I welcome it, the proposal could go further. Dr. Beamish referred to it as a platform for co-operation. Certain member states, no matter what is done, will not co-operate. They will break every law, rule and regulation for as long they can get away with it. It is pie in the sky hoping for co-operation. My concern is the agency will not have teeth. If officials uncover wrongdoing, to whom will they report? Who will take action on foot of their reports? Can they arrive unannounced at a port in any member state to check on what is landed there or must they go through the local fishery protection authority?

Dr. Beamish

Deputy Broughan stated the agency should be better equipped, given better powers and muscled up. That debate must take place. The proposal was only published in April and the Council will have its first discussion on it, involving only exploratory questions, at its October meeting and the new Commission will deal with this early in 2005. There is much detail to be worked through regarding how this is established.

Deputy McGinley asked if the Irish industry had been consulted. We are still awaiting final publication of the feasibility study to which I referred and which has been carried out by consultants on behalf of the Commission. The fishing industry had an input and was consulted directly.

As the committee is also aware, during the course of the Common Fisheries Policy review, we had a very active involvement with our own fishing industry. We all appeared before this committee regarding that review. The industry was always consistent in stating that there needs to be strong uniform fisheries control if we are to avoid fish stock collapse. I recall the words of Mr. Frank Doyle of the Irish Fishermen's Organisation that fisheries control was the glue that held the whole conservation policy together and without that it would fall apart. The industry has been consulted. We will continue to work with the Irish fishing industry. We have a standing working committee that meets every month with the fishing industry and in the same way we deal with the industry on all proposals on the table.

Senator Kenneally asked whether officials can arrive unannounced to carry out checks. The answer to that is "Yes". The inspectors in the current Commission may make announced visits to member states but they regularly arrive unannounced and form their own view of what is happening in fishing ports. Under Article 14 of this proposal their assessments are promptly communicated to the Commission. The Commission is the enforcement body. If a member state is failing to honour its obligations under the Common Fisheries Policy, the Commission can and increasingly does take legal action against it.

Deputy Broughan

Was any legal action taken recently in the Court of Justice against, for example, Spain?

Dr. Beamish

There are quite a large number of legal actions relating to fisheries control issues against all member states, including Ireland, in the system. These occur on a regular basis. There was one very well-known finding against France in recent times which led to a very substantial financial penalty. I do not know the position regarding Spain. As a matter of routine most member states have had cases against them. The Commission publishes what is known as the CFP compliance scoreboard. This is available on the Commission's website and sets out the Commission's view on how each member is doing regarding fisheries control. This is something Ireland welcomed and is part of creating transparency regarding fisheries control.

Chairman

I thank Dr. Beamish for his presentation which has been very informative. Is it agreed to support this measure and draft report and note the concern that a level playing field be achieved? I believe that is a summary of the views of the members of the committee.

Deputy Broughan

The agency might be too weak because of its location.

Chairman

I am advised that this has been dealt with already. Is the proposal agreed? Agreed.

The joint committee adjourned at 5.05 p.m. sine die.